Good thread everyone, IMO.

Well, if the " fat burning zone " includes a Vo2 max as high as 85% and a % MHR as high as 90%, I'd consider both of these values to be quite " high " ....and is " high intensity " cardio....... wouldn't you ?

Especially as it pertains to your earlier comment in which you said........

" The doing cardio on an empty stomach in the morning theory works mainly from a low intensity cardio where you stay in your stable fat burning heart rate zone "

...in which you seem to suggest the fat burning zone ( 50%-85% Vox 2 max in your view ) is actually more closely associated with low intensity cardio...whereas Alan places moderate intensity at only 63-68% VO2 max ( or approx 77% - 81% MHR ).

How does a high value of 80% - 90% % MHR - i.e the fat burning zone - then also become associated with a low intensity form of cardio ?

Am I interpreting your comments correctly ?

So....the consensus suggestion for me?

' you burn 300% more calories if you do morning cardio on an empty stomach '

Interesting.

So, I get up, have a light breakfast, and then a short while later I do 30 minutes of steady state low intensity cardio, that for arguments sake, lets' say ......burns 250 calories.

Are you saying that ( all other things being equal ) if I hadn't had any breakfast I would have actually burned 300% more calories ?

In other words , I would have burned 750 calories ( 3 X 250 ) - i.e 300% more - instead of 250 calories ?

Is that what you're saying ?

Here's my take.

It seems you want to lose fat and apart from all the diet changes you've made and weight training you're doing, you've decided you also want to dedicate 30 minutes of cardio a day toward that goal.

Fair enough.

My view is a simple one. Losing fat is about losing calories. And when it comes to steady state cardio at least, ( all other things being equal ) the higher intensity at which you train, the more calories you burn during those 30 minutes. So, if would go as hard as I could .... sustaining this pace for a steady 30 minutes. Why ? Because a high intensity steady state pace burns more calories than if you went at a low / moderate intensity steady state pace.
.
Then there is HIIT. Another good choice. It too burns a lot of calories ( burned both during and after exercise ). And, is a better choice for your 30 minutes - for fat loss - when compared to low / moderate intensity steady state cardio. However, the extent to which 30 minutes of HIIT is better than 30 minutes of steady state high intensity cardio is something I'm less certain of.

I dont think you are interpreting it correctly...Well if you are saying Alan's numbers are moderate to low intensity...77%-81%...those numbers are just the average of the numbers I said...meaning that it is still in the same range...

Say your light breakfast is 250 calories as well, and you burn 250 calories in your cardio workout. Then you are burning at a 100% rate. Now say you did not eat that breakfast of 250 calories...And you burn 250 stored calories, then that is a 200% rate. 500 calories would be a 300% rate.

I hope that explains it.

Im doing HIIT 3 times a week and doing 30 minutes of SS cardio after my workouts. I tried adding HIIT after my full body workouts but found that my body is too wiped out from the weight training to get a high intensity interval workout in with any real success. On my SS cardio days (post weight training) I have ramped up the intensity to allow my heart rate to remain at a higher level.

I guess my question really is...should I increase my calorie intake so I am only in a 500 calorie deficit daily or would I be better served in cutting carbs below 100 grams a day and increasing protein?

Intense weight training is primarily an anaerobic activity and as a result you derive the majority of the energy you need to fuel those sorts of workouts from glycogen. And, carbs are normally the primary source of fuel you need for creating glycogen. In other words, carbs are critical in optimizing your performance during intense weight training sessions IMO.

In the same way, HIIT is also an intense anaerobic activity that relies heavily on carbs / glycogen for fuel. And, higher intensity steady state cardio also places on significant reliance on carbs / glycogen for fuel as well.

So, within the context I provided above, I think " cutting carbs below 100 grams a day " is a ludicrous idea.

In fact, for what it's worth, anytime I was involved in heavy duty ' intense ' training ( mostly during my hockey days ), I took in at least 50% ( up to 60%+ ) of my diet from carbs and still kept very lean in the process ( i.e sub 10% body fat ).

No I'm not.

If I'm only training at ' low intensity ' , the bulk of my fuel is from stored fat and to a lesser extent stored glycogen and some glucose as well.

Unfortunately, that is not what you said. You said.....

" cardio to mornings on and empty stomach since you burn 300% more calories that way "

......in other words it reads as " calories burned " would go up by 300%. Nonetheless, lets focus on the issue of actual " calories burned " for a moment, just so I fully understand your point.

So in other words, given........

A: You eat 250 calories ( your example ) , you do 30 minutes of low intensity steady state cardio , and you burn 250 calories

B: You eat nothing, you do 30 minutes of low intensity steady state cardio , and you burn ' X ' calories

Based on your knowledge of " kinesiology and sports medicine " - and the studies in this area - what would your best educated guess be as to the value of ' X " in B ?

Would " X " be approximately, for example ...

- 250 calories ?
- 325 calories ?
- 500 calories ?
- 750 calories ?

...or some other value ? Thoughts ?



.

I'd like to toss something out.....

TFV, when I first arrived on this forum I found myself answering questions and feeling a bit backed into a corner with Wrangell. He tends to splice-up post and pick 'em apart. I just want to say, he's not a bad guy....he's very scientific, thorough, serious & precise. He's not trying to corner you, humiliate you or debunk you. His interest is sincere and he's not trying to be adversarial in any way. Please don't make the same mistake I did by misinterpretting his questioning what you write. Like others, he's fascinated to learn, understand and figure things out. I don't know if this helps, but he's Canadian....

On another note....I used to feel I wasn't dropping the weight I should be given my efforts. I imagined the problem was that I was working-out at such an intense level that most my fuel was coming from glycogen: I'd run the glycogen down, then replenish it by eating...the process cycling over and over and all along my fat-reserves weren't being tapped (or perhaps just marginally being tapped).

The good news is that it really doesn't work that way. The body is constantly burning a combination/mixture of "fuels". When you increase the intensity of your exercise YOU DON'T BURN LESS FAT then at a lower intensity, you actually start burning fat at a faster rate but glycogen starts coming in to fuel a more demanding rate/need....and so you burn lesser a percentage of fat, but overall more fat then at the lower intensity.

Look....it's human nature to try to figure things out and strive to understand things. Most of us wonder:

Perhaps if I don't eat for one day?
Maybe I should eat in excess for 2 days, and then drop to 800 calories?
What if I eat 500 extra calories one day, then 500 less the next day?
What if I eat grapefruit juice before each meal?
What if I just eat all my meals with a small fork?
How about if I drink 2 gallons of green tea each day?
How can I reprogram my interal thermostat to a lower weight?
Maybe I can reset my metabolism?
Perhaps I can turn my body into fat-burning machine?
What if I exercise at only odd-hours of the day?

Witchcraft, voodoo & wishful thinking.....

Guys....it's calories in vs. calories out. Beyond that, it's just your inherent genetics. Some guys eat like pigs and don't gain weight, others (like myself) eat light and our bodies make the most of each calorie. Some guys stack-on muscle fast & easy....other guys work away in the gym, can't develop abs, build calves or become muscular. It is what it is, accept who you are, make the most of what you have and play the cards you were dealt. In the entire history of mankind, this is probably the best time to be alive....ENJOY!

JW, it's typical....you had a lot of fast weight-loss. Your body has adapted to the lower calories, and your body has adapted & developed to handle your exercise load. Frustrating? HELL YES....but when you really think about it, there really isn't much you can do but stay the course. (Not to suggest you are looking for it)...but there is no magic bullet, combination of foods, special sequence of exercises, particular timing or any weird-science that will unlock the barrier in front of you and allow you to continue dumping weight at your beginning-rate. You're into the deep nasty white stubborn fat. You're not doing anything wrong.

Let me help ya brother...we're on the same path, I'm just a few yards ahead of you. When I hit your wall, I increased my biking from 14 miles to 24 miles (about 3 hours of grueling cardio). I added swimming, went from 1 night of racquetball to 2 nights, pushed heavier weights and started hitting the elliptical. Ya know what....it made a difference; for about one month I saw some good weight-loss...and then my body adapted, totally adapted. I'm right where you are now, again! So go ahead, up the exercise and cut the calories, we'll be having this discussion a couple months from now.

So is it all for not???

NO. And I'll tell you why. Yesteday I ran into a friend, a very cynical guy (he was in the Olmpics some decade ago on the 2-man row dealio)...he's an athlete. He saw me and he couldn't believe how I've changed...he complimented me up & down and marveled at the change in my body. Odd: I still don't see much. The scale doesn't show much either. So the thing is, often you can't see the change. Bone density increases, muscle weighs more then fat, your whole body is changing.

My advice is to stop evaluating yourself in a means & manner that is setting you up for disappointment. Time and again I watched my weight stay the same or go up....but my body-fat% kept dropping. That's all that matters: if you can tell me your body-fat% is stagnant, then we'll talk about hormonal issues and thyroid problems....but my hunch is you don't have a problem and your only issue is with a scale-based assessment & evaluatory measure that isn't fair nor just. Instead of celebrating your success, you're mentally chained to statistics and a scale that is wearing on your sense of accomplishment.

We are what we believe, our reality is what we perceive, only your mind limits what you can achieve. -Chillen



Okay, Chillen didn't actually say that....but it's so Chillen I just had to tag his name to it. The thing we each have to come to terms with the fact that we all have a little bit of Chillen in us....everyone except the Anti-Chillen. There is no Chillen in Derwyddon.

But seriously dude....eat right 90% of the time, keep up the exercise, avoid the scale, find a means to measure body-fat% and remember; what you're doing now is soooo much different then how you used to eat/exercise/live: it's bound to work. It's working, it has worked and it will work.....just be persistent, stay the course and believe!

As I told you before, I simply took your nutritionist Alan's advice..........

" I encourage my clients, students, and colleagues to question everyone's advice " -- Alan Aragon

.........remember.

You can't hope to learn anything new from someone if you don't ask questions - particularly in this case, from someone who has studied " kinesiology and sports medicine ".

........

Ok, then stay away from the low carb option. So that leaves me with either increasing the amount of cardio or playing around with the caloric intake or a combination of both.